kyhwana2: So are you telling my married friends are somehow "wrong" for not breeding after getting married?

I believe in the ideal world, potential parents would show commitment by way of marriage to each other before having children. I know there are plenty of divorces and I imagine cases of families with no marriage which are working just fine, but coming from a LONG line of family with children born out of wedlock including myself, I think my kids are in a more stable environment than any of the rest of my family were because my wife and I are married.

Sure, but you don't have the right to tell people they have to get married or that people can't get divorced once they breed or that someone CANT get married.

If I was gay, I would want to be married as that is a more meaningful, emotional state of mind than a civil union. And I expect many gays/lesbians would still want to be "married" even if civil union achieved exactly the same rights.

Sam, what do you think?

Tony

I assume you're meaning me lol.

I feel exactly the same. If we have had the same rights with both, I'd still feel left out because we want to actually be able to call our partner our husband or wife like everyone else.

I have friends who call their same sex partners their husband and wife because they know they're entitled to it like everyone else, even if the law doesnt say so.

Its completely childish if you ask me. Religion didn't invent marriage, so stop using it as an excuse to decide the extent of someones love.

Well you are using it to decide the extent of someones love by insisting you be allowed to marry?

menabassily: I believe it's time for gay people to have their share of suffering by getting married XD It's really unfair that only straight people have the right to ridiculously fudge up their entire lives by getting married.

Sign here, here and there. There you go...

My vote is for allowing everybody to choose to get married or stay happily single.

Now and once this bill passes, you need to understand one thing about marriage. It's the leading cause of divorce. Good luck guys.

Technofreak: I respect a gay couples right to live as a loving couple just as a man and woman do in marriage. The Civil Union Bill gives them legal formalisation of their partnership in the same manner marriage does. I don’t see why there is a need to change the laws on marriage to allow gay couples to marry, it won’t enable them to conceive and bear children. What is being achieved with this bill?

Civil unions do not provide the same rights and legal formalisation as the institution of marriage. Gay couples have brought up children for years and years now. Why is it wrong for these children if their parents are married? Many religious authorities and marriage celebrants are happy to marry gay couples (and for all intents and purposes already do that) is there any good reason why this should not be recognised in law?

Ok, since you guys are pushing it. Here is what I sent Sean Plunket for his Radio show about 6 months ago (he was discussing gay rights to adopt kids and marriage etc) :

Hi Sean,

I?m sure this is one of the few times when a bloody immigrant like myself living in a civilized country like New Zealand NOT demanding something that will take this country out of civilization or drag it back to the dark ages. Very unusual indeed.

Do I think same sex marriage is civilized, YES (in capital bold letters). I am not gay, but where I come from, gay people getting killed by religious activists or family member (if lucky) or get in prison serving time if caught by the government and believe it or not, they are the unlucky ones.

People keep saying that homosexuality is not natural and this is wrong. Talking evidence here, there is nothing more natural than nature itself, right? Homosexuality is known and not even minority in the wild, animals do it all the time, male/male or female/female. You should watch more animal planet and discovery channel. In fact some species has only one sex and they keep breeding and the only two animals -we know of- besides us that have sex for fun, have more homosexuality than heterosexuality in their lives for different reasons. For example, Dolphins have same sex partners and sometimes one commits suicide by drowning themselves if that same sex partner dies.

And about marriage, why not? Marriage in my opinion is a contract that states who gets the money if one party dies or both get divorced, I don?t believe in it, but why deny the right of choice that I have getting married to other people??? Is it because we don?t like them? Or we need to have something they can?t have because we are better? Or maybe because God hates f@gs??

A good parent is a good parent, and a bad one is a bad one. Sex, colour and even Species don?t really matter. Some kids are lucky enough to get two good parents, some are not so lucky having only one good parent, and the really unlucky ones getting both bad parents or no parents at all. If you look at it this way, it might help you see a bigger picture.

If I was gay, I would want to be married as that is a more meaningful, emotional state of mind than a civil union. And I expect many gays/lesbians would still want to be "married" even if civil union achieved exactly the same rights.

Sam, what do you think?

Tony

I assume you're meaning me lol.

I feel exactly the same. If we have had the same rights with both, I'd still feel left out because we want to actually be able to call our partner our husband or wife like everyone else.

I have friends who call their same sex partners their husband and wife because they know they're entitled to it like everyone else, even if the law doesnt say so.

Its completely childish if you ask me. Religion didn't invent marriage, so stop using it as an excuse to decide the extent of someones love.

Well you are using it to decide the extent of someones love by insisting you be allowed to marry?

As I mentioned above, we don't ban straight couples who can't or won't conceive from getting married, now do we? According to you, we should start!

So when can we expect you to make marriage for fertile only opposite sex couples?

Isn't funny how people interpret what has been said or written. I haven't suggested at all that we should ban couples who can't or won't conceive. Conception isn't a requirement, my point was the generally expected outcome of marriage was children, however there can never be an expectation of conception from a gay couple.

kyhwana2:Also, since children require a mother and a mother, will you also be campaigning to ban divorce? If not, will the state then be taking children from solo mothers/fathers? Including widows?

I was wondering how long it would be before this spurious argument was brought up. No one I know of set out to become divorced or planned on being a single parent. Unfortunately it does happen for a variety of of reasons and I'll be the the first to admit that sadly some children are better off in the single parent situation than they were with two parents.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because some children end up in a single parent family doesn't make it correct/right/normal to legislate for other children to end up in a similar circumstance.

As I mentioned above, we don't ban straight couples who can't or won't conceive from getting married, now do we? According to you, we should start!

So when can we expect you to make marriage for fertile only opposite sex couples?

Isn't funny how people interpret what has been said or written. I haven't suggested at all that we should ban couples who can't or won't conceive. My point was the generally expected outcome of marriage was children, it isn't a requirement.

If you're not suggesting that, then why exactly are you suggesting that equal marriage remain illegal? If it's not a requirement then same sex couples aren't required to breed to get married.

I don't see how

However there can never be an expectation of conception from a gay couple.

is a valid argument for not legalising equal marriage.

kyhwana2:Also, since children require a mother and a mother, will you also be campaigning to ban divorce? If not, will the state then be taking children from solo mothers/fathers? Including widows?

I was wondering how long it would be before this spurious argument was brought up. No one I know of set out to become divorced or planned on being a single parent. Unfortunately it does happen for a variety of of reasons and I'll be the the first to admit that sadly some children are better off in the single parent situation than they were with two parents.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because some children end up in a single parent family doesn't make it correct/right/normal to legislate for other children to end up in a similar circumstance.

Just like how no one set out to become gay/bi/etc.

Also, thank you for making my point for me! Two wrongs DONT make a right. (If you want to argue about why exactly equal marriage is wrong, go right ahead. This should be good. Also, we've just hashed out why this argument isn't about children at all, so don't try that one again)

menabassily: I believe it's time for gay people to have their share of suffering by getting married XD It's really unfair that only straight people have the right to ridiculously fudge up their entire lives by getting married.

Sign here, here and there. There you go...

My vote is for allowing everybody to choose to get married or stay happily single.

Now and once this bill passes, you need to understand one thing about marriage. It's the leading cause of divorce. Good luck guys.

If I was gay, I would want to be married as that is a more meaningful, emotional state of mind than a civil union. And I expect many gays/lesbians would still want to be "married" even if civil union achieved exactly the same rights.

Sam, what do you think?

Tony

I assume you're meaning me lol.

I feel exactly the same. If we have had the same rights with both, I'd still feel left out because we want to actually be able to call our partner our husband or wife like everyone else.

I have friends who call their same sex partners their husband and wife because they know they're entitled to it like everyone else, even if the law doesnt say so.

Its completely childish if you ask me. Religion didn't invent marriage, so stop using it as an excuse to decide the extent of someones love.

Well you are using it to decide the extent of someones love by insisting you be allowed to marry?

No, I feel that he wishes to profess his love by marriage. That is an emotional feeling, as compared to a civil union, IMO

kyhwana2: Also, we've just hashed out why this argument isn't about children at all, so don't try that one again)

Oh really, children can result from a heterosexual relationship but never from a homosexual relationship.

I'm still trying to determine what the need for this bill is to start with. No one has come up with a credible argument as to why it's needed. What does it do that the current law doesn't achieve?

Anyone who finished primary school would know two men or two females cannot produce children without a member of the opposite sex being involved, thats not what this is trying to change though. What it will change however, is the conditions of marriage. It will allow couples of the same sex to marry and then have a better chance at adopting than they would have without this bill. This isn't going to give us better chances or rights than hetro couples, but it will give us equal chances, as it should always have been.